Yes, but could those one or two books really be compared (no matter what their quality) to the entire fictional universe that Lee was largely responsible for creating?

To me, comparing Lee and Nabokow isn't like comparing a podiatrist to a heart surgeon or even like comparing a Big Mac to caviar. It's like comparing an Olympic long jumper to an Olympic archer or comparing a chess grandmaster to the guy who holds the world record in solving the Rubix Cube. There's nothing sensible to be drawn from such a comparison.

Mike

"What armchair psychiatry? I simply stuck to the statements as such."

Not when you've interpreted my aesthetic tastes in terms of your judgmental statements, Sigmund.


"What, you have to put weasel quotes around Nabokov's level of writing as if it's in question? If that's some burden of mine, it's a pretty easy one to carry."

And speaking of rushes to judgment, here's one now. Hey, there is another purpose behind what you like to call "weasel quotes." It's called "attribution," as in, "This term was used by you, not by me, in such and such circumstances." I put the same quote around "deprived," but it would seem you got that one, since you didn't raise these meaningless objections.

"What guilt is demonstrated by simply acknowledging that Lee isn't on the level of Nabokov?"

I don't care whether you feel guilt at reading Spider-Man or not. I'm pointing out that the argument could be applied to you as easily as to me, and that, regardless of how you rate Spider-Man, you've said a lot of things-- far more than I have-- that could be fairly interpreted as viewing genre as inferior. This is *your* high/low dilemma, whether it's a question of high literary status vs. the low version, or high quality vs. low quality. Either way, it ain't *my* problem.

'I'm not sure what you mean by "amplifying patterns in genre-work," but it sure sounds like a pretentious way of saying exaggeration. One doesn't have to "amplify" Highsmith or Lem, their work speaks for itself, regardless of genre politics.'

Of course, given your little problem, you would say so.

BTW, is there a genre classic that does deserve to be rated, quality-wise, alongside Nabokov?

I was commenting on this:

I was going through your list and I came to the conclusion that I must not be as into art as you are. Facial expressions, panel composition and stuff like that don't mean a heck of a lot to me if I'm not enjoying the writing.

I think it would be safe to say that most indie fans are more easily swayed than I am by art they find interesting.

If they talk about liking Silver Age Marvel, for example, they tend to say things like "Well, yeah. Stan's stories were crap, but Jack totally rocked!" Or if they like Dr. Strange, it's because of Ditko's crazy layouts.

Or consider Blankets. I have seen a lot of people complain about how much the writing sucked, and usually when people defend it they don't even bother trying to stand up for the story. They concentrate almost totally on how nice it looked, or how he used spot color or other visual elements.

I consider art secondary to writing, so it doesn't take much to make me happy. But I also have a hard time overlooking crappy writing just because the comic looks good.

I dropped JSA when I realized that the only thing I liked about it was Stephen Sadowski's pencils.

I don't care who Harvey Pekar gets to draw for him. I'll never care about him or his life.

I largely agree, and I'd say Charles does too. I'm sure when he gets home from work, or recovers from his bender or whatever, he'll point out again that it wasn't HIS comparison to begin with. I guess if someone put a gun to his head (don't get any ideas, Dumas) and insisted he make a decision between who is the better writer, Charles would opt for Nabokov.

I say I agree 'largely' because I feel some comparison could be made, if need be. (Like you, I think the best answer is to steer clear of making the comparison, but if someone else brought it up...) Forget the whole universe Lee was largely responsible for, and just look at his writing as such. He is a scripter of certain specific comics. I think you could make some sort of educated guess, from that, at his skill as a writer in a general sense. So you could reasonably say that it is very unlikely that Lee, if he sat down to write a novel with no distractions and could take his time, would write something as good as Lolita. That's not to say Nabokov could necessarily have done what Lee did for comics either. But if you're talking specifically about writing ability, with the hypothetical gun to my head, I'd plum for Nabokov, too.

PALE FIRE and HIS MASTER'S VOICE deserve to be compared, and I believe they have been. As for the rest of your response, it's nonsense. You automatically jump from my pointing out the rather obvious about the level of Lee's writing to all genre writing, ignoring all the genre examples I've mentioned here that I hold in high esteem. To continue insisting my problem is with genre writing per se is just plain dishonest, and I don't see any reason to respond to it with any more than I already have.

And I agree with Stevv.

Gene, it doesn't matter whether he explains it, or you reference it, in terms of genre/nongenre* or high/low; the fact remains Charles was not saying socalled high art is innately superior to genre, or 'low' art. He was saying (agree or not) that the work 'Lolita' by Nabokov was superior in writing quality to the Lee-penned Spider-Man. That is a specific case, not a statement about genre v nongenre, or 'high art' v 'low art'.

Added in Edit: Btw, Gene, I'm not saying that I think you do have a hang-up about 'low' v 'high' art. I'm not sure what Charles' reason is for saying that. But I can't see that you've provided any evidence that Charles does, either.


* And I personally find the whole 'genre fiction' as opposed to 'nongenre fiction' problematic, in any case. I'm not sure what 'nongenre' really is meant to get at.

And I agree with Stevv again.

Ken the last line was indeed a joke, but since fanboy is a humorless dickhead, he of course missed it. And yes I do like a wide range of stuff, everything from Steve Ditko to Lynn Johnson. But you see in the world of the baby men, if you like Clowes or Los. Bros. you are some kind of poser. It couldn't be that I really did grow bored with superheros, and found comics I liked better. The truth is I only really like the comics I like to make fanboy feel bad about what he likes.

And just to be clear here;

I DON'T CARE WHAT ANYONE THINKS ABOUT WHAT I LIKE. IF THE NEW YORK TIMES THINKS IT IS GOOD OR BAD IS MEANLESS TO ME. I LIKE WHAT I LIKE BECAUSE I LIKE IT, NOT BECAUSE IT HAS SOME SORT OF HIPSTER PRE-APPROVAL.

I know its hard for some fanboy baby men to understand that, but it is the truth.

There was no "jump." You said you didn't see any point in comparing Lee and Nabokov any more, so I obligingly dropped the matter, mostly because I don't care to dredge through the old thread from which it came. I only brought it up to show what I said here:

" you've said a lot of things-- far more than I have-- that could be fairly interpreted as viewing genre as inferior. This is *your* high/low dilemma, whether it's a question of high literary status vs. the low version, or high quality vs. low quality. Either way, it ain't *my* problem."

I'm not surprised that this is "nonsense" to you, since you've conveniently forgotten that you attributed this peculiar high/low thing to me, w/o even explaining what it is. That was here, on 10-2:

"If anything, it seems more likely that you would, making you aware of the low standards the majority of superhero genre barely meets, thereby supplying a need to justify reading such stories when you could be reading something else. The real difference between our takes on superheroes, Gene, is that you can't shake the low/high divide and I don't give a dribble of a fuck about it."

This bit of armchair psychiatry made no sense when you said it and makes no more sense a page later. If my system gives me a way to validate what's usually called "junk fiction" without making any claims that it fulfills the same goals as literary fiction, then why would the "low/high divide" bother me? Seems to me it would only bother someone who claimed that SPIDER-MAN was as good as LOLITA on every level. Which I have not done. I don't really give a fuck if the divide bothers you, either; just pointing out that your accusation against me could be just as easily turned on you.

So, since neither of us cares about contrasting Lee and Nabokov, I asked if you had a genre-work that would compare with a nongenre work. That's all. You claimed you didn't think genre work was intrinsically inferior as such, so I asked you for an example of a superior genre-work that met the same standards as a nongenre work. As I've not read HIS MASTER'S VOICE, I can't comment on how felicitous the comparison is.

That's do it for now.